Replies

1. 
   joinerswork | Mar 20, 2007 03:16pm | #1

   Cincinnati,

   Are you planning on a blind-wedged, or a through tenon? I've seen the term "foxed" applied to both.

   Ray Pine

1. 
   SgianDubh | Mar 20, 2007 05:35pm | #2

   So have I Ray. However, as you and I both know, a fox wedged tenon is what you called a 'blind' wedged tenon. A through wedged tenon is, well, a through wedged tenon. Some folks just haven't learnt the trade jargon or nomenclature.

   As to Cincinnati's question regarding fit, the likelihood of a fox wedged tenon working loose is dependent on a variety of factors I suppose. The wider the tenoned part the more shrinkage could go on. On the other hand if the joint is cut tight out of dry wood, say 6% or 7% which is suited to RH values of about 40%, it will gain moisture to about 11%- 12% when exposed to higher atmospheric RH values, say 60%.

   Here the wood in the tenoned member will attempt to swell, and what will matter most is exapnsion in the tenon width. It won't be able to expand because the mortice is restricting it. The end result is that the cells at the extreme width ends of the tenoned part will get crushed permanently. Later when RH drops again to about 40% the wood will dry again to about 6% or 7% and shrink and the tenoned part will be a bit loose.

   This is essentially the same reason that hammer heads get loose on wooden shafts, and why the wedges used in hammers have their place.

   My advice to Cincinnati would be not to get too anal about treating the joint like a precision engineering job and just go ahead and make it with just a little play between the width of the tenon and the length of the mortice, and judge the ratio of the saw kerfs and wedges to perfection. The joint is enormously strong even if it does suffer some depredation through the moisture cycling process. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture

1. 
   joinerswork | Mar 20, 2007 09:33pm | #3

   Richard,

   I believe it was Wallace Nutting, author of that bible of early furniture collectors, "Furniture Treasury", who called the cross-wedged through tenons in a Windsor chair seat, "foxtail wedged".

   I agree that the blind wedged variety is more properly called "foxed", maybe a veiled reference to the wily-ness needed to execute the technique satisfactorily.

   I personally dislike the things, as, when they loosen, they are well nigh impossible to dis-assemble for repair, and are problematic to reglue as they are.  I'm particularly reminded of a set of Irish country chairs that the Frontier Culture museum near here in VA, imported from Ulster.  When they'd acclimated to the weather here (maybe before they got here), they were as wobbly as a newborn calf, yet defied any effort short of destruction, to get them apart.  Seems that everyone with aspirations toward "mastery of the craft", though, needs to try their hand at cutting some of them.  Myself included, as I was commissioned to reproduce several of those Irish chairs, after I'd repaired the old ones.  

   By way of hi-jacking this thread, Richard, are you aware of any British practice of using American red cedar (juniperus virginiana) as secondary wood?  I recently had a smallish mahogany writing table,  heavy turned legs, flush drawers, tooled leather top, surrounded by mahogany crossbanding;  its workmanship was impeccable, making me think it was likely English, until I realised the drawer sides and bottom were quartersawn red cedar!  Beautiful dainty dovetails, thin (3/8") drawer stock, and aprons only about 5/8" thick as well.  The dovetails holding the  front top rail to the legs were as nicely done as those on the drawers, tho never intended to be seen.  My American mindset of using inexpensive, domestic stuff for secondary woods can't make sense of an English maker using imported wood in this instance.  Your thoughts?

   Regards,

   Ray

    

1. 
   SgianDubh | Mar 20, 2007 11:18pm | #4

   Two possiblities cross my mind Ray.

   1. A transplanted Brit working in the US.

   2. Depending on the age of the piece the wood might have been imported from the US, or if a later piece (into the early 1800's and beyond), from Canada. Even though you uppity colonials decided to go your own way and have a country of your own you did still trade with the UK in the late 1700's and onwards.

   Also, GB had a thing going with the "Baltic Problem" in the 1600's to roughly the 1830's, and for political and financial reasons the New England states and Canada were seen as alternative timber suppliers. Shipbuilders and others in the 'Mother Country' needed the timber in the 17th. and 18th. century, and even into the early part of the 19th. century.

   The north American timber wasn't as good as the Baltic material but what with punitive taxes on Baltic imports it could be profitable. It wouldn't surprise me to find a bit of Viginian pencil cedar getting chucked into the ships' hold to make up the load. 

   On the other hand I can't recall ever coming across this stuff being used as a secondary wood in British furniture. That doesn't mean it wasn't. I just don't think I've ever seen it used this way over here. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture

1. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Mar 21, 2007 12:07pm | #8

   HI RJ,I'd concur with what you said.Australian species showed up in British/English work (as the battle of Culloden was still fresh at the time (boo hiss)) from about 1790 onwards, as the trade ships that brought supplies over here needed ballast and goods to take back.They tell me that the wharves of St Catherines in London are made from Sydney sandstone.Timber was another. Sheoak made it's way into Gilbows' furniture from 1795 onwards, making it's way into some 'sheraton' pieces also (or did Gilbows mainly work off Hepplewhite?)Perhaps another possibility also, but I'd probably lean to the transplanted cabinetmaker. Seems to make more sense.Cheers,eddieedit: Link
   http://www.bonhamsandgoodman.com.au/about_auction_news_view.php?article=44To CincinattiAs well, back to the fox wedged tenon. -> THere's a lot of hoopla about building a bench as a showpiece, mine's all covered in dents and sawmarks, as well as metal filings embedded into the surface where I've had to sharpen a scraper or cut down a screw (I protect the surface with a piece of newspaper, but it's still not enough, sometimes. Just means that I've got to clean up the surface with a scraper to lift the pieces of metal out.)Don't fret on the bench - nobody's going to look at the joinery holding the leg to the foot.Personally, I'd just cut a blind mortice and tenon and be done with it. I've got no idea what holds the legs of my bench onto the feet - probably a mortice and tenon of some sort. I cut it but it was that long ago I've forgotten what I did (it means that much.) It might even be a bridle joint.The base trestle leg sits on four feet in any case, about 1/8" high and 4" square, so the leg doesn't really touch the floor.Cheers,eddie

   Edited 3/21/2007 5:34 am by eddiefromAustralia

2. 
   joinerswork | Mar 21, 2007 03:24pm | #9

   Richard,

   Yeah it's a puzzlement to me.  I'd thought of the transplanted Brit working here too, but the thing is, cedar isn't that commonly used as secondary wood here in US either.  The piece is what you'd call Regency, I suppose, or degraded Sheraton, about 1840 or so.  It was bought at a shop as an English piece, that's all the owner knows about it.  Wish these things could talk sometimes.

   Ray

2. 
   Cincinnati | Mar 21, 2007 12:31am | #5

   Richard,You are correct. This is a blind joint. Frank Klausz uses a Fox Joint to attach the legs of his workbench to the Feet. Since the through joint would be under the feet, I am unsure why he specs this joint instead of a through wedged tenon (which he uses to attach the same legs to the top Rails).

1. 
   SgianDubh | Mar 21, 2007 02:25am | #6

   I've never seen plans for one of these Klausz benches. I've heard of the guy of course, and I hear he's a joinery whizz. I've never read anything by him, nor seen any of his dovetail video's, which I believe are his really big thing, ha, ha.

   Anyway, I can only guess that he suggests using the fox wedged M&T between the leg and the foot to prevent moisture getting from something like a concrete floor at the exposed ends of through wedged M&T's. It's not a particularly good reason I suppose, but it's the best I can think of off the top of my head for now.

   Doesn't he give a reason in the text you are getting your information from? I find it a little odd that someone would recommend a relatively difficult joint without giving a good reason for it.

   The through wedged jobby is easier, and surely the underside of the foot is relieved in the middle creating a pad at either end, so forming only four floor contact points. The end of a through wedged tenon wouldn't be particularly close to the floor even if the mortised foot shrank a bit meaning the tenon and the wedges would protrude. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture

2. 
   mwenz | Mar 21, 2007 03:13am | #7

   Frank Klausz uses a Fox Joint to attach the legs of his workbench to the Feet. Since the through joint would be under the feet, I am unsure why he specs this joint instead of a through wedged tenon (which he uses to attach the same legs to the top Rails).

   Hmm. I suspect Klausz is using this joint not only for moisture, though that may be a significant part, but also to ensure the feet stay attached for moving around. Even if it is just during the build.

   I personally would just use pegged tenons. That not only soves both issues, but is easier to build. Foxed tenons in this scale of pieces are much easier than furniture-scaled pieces, but the pegged tenon is even easier.

   Take care, Mike